[Discuss] Rob Conery's critique of MySQL?

[Mark Woodward]

On 07/22/2012 12:44 PM, Rich Braun wrote:
> For those of us lacking a 57-minute attention span to watch a full-length
> talk, what's the gist of Rob Conery's argument?  For many, I suppose
> PostgreSQL is a "default choice" but that isn't the case for most of the
> open-source tools I've used in the past 10 years.  I'm now on a project for
> which the default choice would have been Oracle, but the software architect
> has chosen MySQL as a cost-saving alternative.
>
> Why was this architect wrong?

The problem with architecture is that there are both art and engineering 
components, which brings it into the realm of subjectivity.

Choosing MySQL is generally a bad decision, but widely regarded as safe. 
A lot of people use MySQL standing with the crowd allows you a good 
defence when things go wrong .... and they always go wrong, everything 
from Oracle to MSSQL to Sybase to MySQL to PostgreSQL will eventually 
have an issue. Its true.

Databases like Oracle, PostgreSQL, and MSSQL represent man-centuries of 
research and development. Disregarding them is the act of fools.

I may tell you, MySQL is a bad database because of X, Y, and Z, but that 
doesn't really help you. Watch the first 15 minutes of the video for a 
taste. Do some personal research and really really learn about 
"databases," more than the minimum you need to use them. Once you 
understand the reasoning of why Oracle uses redo logs and PostgreSQL 
uses WAL, our opinions won't matter.
>
> -rich
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss